retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
It seems he is still talking about textual criticism and you are going to reality in general. Perhaps there is some clarification needed here as well?
McCurley Responds to Keister
- Thread starter Parakaleo
- Start date
- Status
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Graham,
Think carefully about what you are propounding here. I have no problem reconciling both types of statements (The Confession and the authors of the Confession)---you do. The Hebrew and Greek texts can both be of final authority, and still have work yet to be done, and without the problem of an "open canon". Actually, of the dozens of authors I've been able to find who spoke touching this subject, I have yet to find a Puritan or Reformer who spoke on this subject who did not take this view! All the evidence points toward this being the universal attitude with regard to the text. It's a false dichotomy to conclude that perfection or absolute certainty must be attained first in order to be of authority or a standard, otherwise translations could be of no authority either, nor could any apograph.
On the other hand, your view has to conclude that Samuel Rutherford, Thomas Goodwin, and William Bridges, all were, at best, inconsistent, or did not represent the thinking of the Assembly. All without actual evidence, merely speculation, to fit your position. I find that remarkable! Isn't this just rationalizing your pre-conceived determination rather than letting the men speak for themselves?
Is there anything whatsoever that could change your certainty on your interpretation or are we at the point where even if multiple Divines were to step forward and say "No, that is not what we meant", you would say they were wrong? Seriously consider that. There cannot be dialogue when one party insists their view is right and dismisses everything to the contrary with mere speculation. That's the very definition of dogmatism.
Here's another question that might help: if the Divines were referring to an established text, precisely what edition were they referring to? There were many available to them, and none that corresponds exactly with what most use today. So which one are you thinking they (and us) should appeal to? It's not as straight-forward as is made out to be.
It's a position that sounds good at first glance, but which the evidence refutes and is untenable with the facts regarding the state of the text in all ages.
Think carefully about what you are propounding here. I have no problem reconciling both types of statements (The Confession and the authors of the Confession)---you do. The Hebrew and Greek texts can both be of final authority, and still have work yet to be done, and without the problem of an "open canon". Actually, of the dozens of authors I've been able to find who spoke touching this subject, I have yet to find a Puritan or Reformer who spoke on this subject who did not take this view! All the evidence points toward this being the universal attitude with regard to the text. It's a false dichotomy to conclude that perfection or absolute certainty must be attained first in order to be of authority or a standard, otherwise translations could be of no authority either, nor could any apograph.
On the other hand, your view has to conclude that Samuel Rutherford, Thomas Goodwin, and William Bridges, all were, at best, inconsistent, or did not represent the thinking of the Assembly. All without actual evidence, merely speculation, to fit your position. I find that remarkable! Isn't this just rationalizing your pre-conceived determination rather than letting the men speak for themselves?
Is there anything whatsoever that could change your certainty on your interpretation or are we at the point where even if multiple Divines were to step forward and say "No, that is not what we meant", you would say they were wrong? Seriously consider that. There cannot be dialogue when one party insists their view is right and dismisses everything to the contrary with mere speculation. That's the very definition of dogmatism.
Here's another question that might help: if the Divines were referring to an established text, precisely what edition were they referring to? There were many available to them, and none that corresponds exactly with what most use today. So which one are you thinking they (and us) should appeal to? It's not as straight-forward as is made out to be.
It's a position that sounds good at first glance, but which the evidence refutes and is untenable with the facts regarding the state of the text in all ages.
D
Deleted member 12919 by request
Guest
Brother, I’m saying that the type of “certainty” that the TR-Only camp is searching for does not accord with the way God actually preserved his word—the “reality of the situation,” if you will.
Consequently, that “certainty over truth” lens through which the topic is then viewed necessarily results in erroneous argumentation, as has been pointed out ad nauseam on this board.
To say it another way, the TR-Only proponent, basing his whole argument on an ability to infallibly discern God’s will in the providential keeping of his word through the ages, and to tie God’s hands with regards to other instances of non-TR-Onlyist providences, is forced to then pick and choose whichever elements of the “evidence” suit TR-Onlyism best—even when the arguments used are contradictory!
As one who issues continual reproofs against those you deem not to be acting “manly” in this debate, may I suggest to you that such a style of argumental gymnastics is actually the least manly of methodologies that one could bring to the issue.
gcdugas
Puritan Board Freshman
Ok friends. Supposed someone wanted to make an assertion on the nature of Christ's resurrection body based upon Mark 16:12. Would you allow the TR reading or insist on the CT? Remember, all controversies are to be settled by going to the Greek and Hebrew according to WCF Chapter one.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Why use that specific text? Seems like you would want to go to one of the other 3 gospels, go earlier in Mark, or almost any of Paul's letters, or even the Old Testament to argue for the resurrection. Mark 16:12 could be used, but if you are arguing with a skeptic, atheist, or some other religion like Islam, why bring in the complication? The textual variants do in fact exist and our opponents know this. You can't just deny them.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
False dichotomy, as you are assuming that the only people who hold to the originality of the last twelve verses of Mark are TR ideologues.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
Lots of CT advocates also hold that the longer ending is inspired, so it's not as simple as a TR vs. CT issue there.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
As an aside note (which this thread has gone on long in the opium of) it utterly baffles me beyond words that anyone would think the Gospel of Mark ends with “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.” — that probably upsets me more than all supposed variants. If all the manuscripts in the world said likewise, I would not believe it.
Let me preface what I am about to say with two things. First, I understand the spirit of what you're saying; I also believe the short ending of Mark is, at best, odd. Second, I believe in the longer ending of Mark precisely because of the preponderance of widespread and ancient witnesses to it, so this isn't because I disagree with your acceptance of this text.
That being said, is it reasonable—is it even confessional or biblical—to say something like this: "If all the variants in the world said likewise, I would not believe it"? This seems rather extreme. Is this not an instance of doing textual criticism on the sole basis of what we believe the text should be a priori? If there were no evidence in all the world that a particular passage was genuine—if there were no manuscript in existence that contained the given passage, and if there were no historical records of there ever being such a witness—would not WCF 1.8 demand that we reject its authenticity, seeing that it is clearly not preserved? I ask this not to criticize or play "gotcha" but rather because this sentiment seems to go beyond the boundaries of reason, confession, and the Scripture itself.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
You mean if all the manuscripts in the totality of history said otherwise? Of course, what I forgot to clarify was the word extant. Forgive me. The fact is that the extant evidence is stacked against those who reject it; but even so, if there were no extant evidence in the year 2023, yea, even an extreme minority of evidence in the history of all extant data, I still would be inclined to receive it as genuine.
But I'm assuming you probably understood it as throughout the totality of history, and that the Reformers never would've had knowledge of it, it was never included in the text that got us out of Babylon, etc. Of course I would agree with you, because then then God would have zero history of his church receiving it.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
If you would grant me this hypothetical question (not trying to win an argument here btw):
What if the TR excluded the longer ending; Erasmus didn’t include it, and it was sent to the printers and shorter ending became part of the TR. The shorter ending then becomes the preserved text throughout the Reformation. The longer ending is then the one discovered later on.
Any change then of your acceptance of the longer ending?
gcdugas
Puritan Board Freshman
Because 16:12 is not about Christ's resurrection, that was covered in the preceding verses, but it does give us the only passage on an aspect of His resurrection body and why we read of many sightings where even His closest associates didn't recognize Him after He was risen. We confess that He was raised in "the selfsame body, albeit with different qualities". I would assert that the actual atomic particles were qualitatively different than anything else on earth in that they were not subject to entropy/decay. Perhaps this was the state of material in paradise before the Curse and death. But we also read that He appeared "in a different form", whatever that may mean. And you will not find that stated anywhere else in the scriptures.
As to those who hold to the CT but affirm the long ending... it seems you have appointed yourselves the arbiter of canonicity. Since you now enjoy this office, why not add the Book of Enoch? The epistle of Barnabus? Where do you start and stop? Sounds very individualistic and arbitrary. Even the Majority Text guys are on more solid ground than the CT guys in this regard.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
The TR as in? The entire Received Text Corpus, or the common position of the Scrivener? I wouldn't imagine it would be called the Received Text position, if it was contrary to what the church has received, minding God's providence ultimately culminating in God redeeming Jacob from the captivity of Rome.
Seeing the Puritans mainly operated off of internal evidence as a first and foremost consideration (even Calvin on the Comma, for an example), internal testimony of the Scriptures bear witness to a post-resurrection appearance, and each gospel sealed with an Amen, I couldn't imagine them ever rejecting it, whatever evidence has come to light since their era. I would myself be in the same camp.
My position ultimately hinges on a view of God's providence, and internal evidence.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
I am not a CT guy, but maybe it might do you some good to look into the various textual critical methods being used today. There is quite a complicated process used. I can assure you it is not just randomly deciding "we like this book, but we don't like these others". And to be fair, just pointing to the TR and saying "this is it" without any scriptural warrant (there are lots of arguments and discussions on this topic on this board) and not really any solid evidence doesn't solve the problem for you either. The majority text and Sturzian positions seem to be the most solid.
Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
One can take into serious account the consensus scholarship of critical texts like NA/UBS, without being a slave to it, or pledging strict allegiance. The sheer number of citations from the longer ending of Mark in the ECFs, including some of the earliest preserved authors, is a daunting counter-balance to its omission from the earliest extant biblical texts. So seeing it as authentic is not simply a baseless or individually supposed position.
Those that unquestioningly take the textual criticism that in fact lays behind the TR (whichever one's chosen version of it may be) as being forevermore unchallengeable, are also liable to the same charge of "arbitrarily" choosing the true state of the original text.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
Was Erasmus being individualistic and arbitrary when he made text-critical decisions and then printed them? What about the KJV editors when they made decisions that departed from the printed editions they were using? Were these men making themselves arbiters of canonicity?
Also, the majority text is fundamentally more similar to CT than the TR in terms of methodology. They are still making text-critical decisions, they just order the criteria differently.
gcdugas
Puritan Board Freshman
Moreover, suppose you were involved in a controversy that you hope to settle by going to the TR / MT long ending and the one settling the controversy took a hardline CT position and would not let you use the long ending of Mark to settle the matter. What then?
Hypothetical, it'll never happen, you could probably prove it elsewhere...
Oh really, well I've heard a preacher assert dogmatically that Christ's would are still there in His glorified Body right now. The hymn Crown Him with Many Crowns even has a verse that states "rich wounds yet visible above, in beauty glorified". Well if Christ retains those, what hope is there for the paraplegic or the "wounded warrior" missing a limb in the General Resurrection. So using 16:12 one could assert that when Christ asked Thomas to thrust his hand into His side (John 20:27), He took a form that would condescend to address his unbelief while in His present ascended estate He bears no wounds. So the matter is not just conjecture.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
I sympathize with the pastoral concern here, but I think there are other lines of argument you could take. For example, Christ's wounds remain in some sense because they are soteriologically significant, but that doesn't give us reason to think all wounds will remain.
Regardless of that specific issue however, we don't make decisions about the text based on what is easier pastorally. It would be really nice if it was as cut and dry as TR advocates say, and it would make things simpler, but that isn't an argument for the position.
gcdugas
Puritan Board Freshman
And yet the CT scholars reject it? Why? If they are so wed to an approach that compels them to such a conclusion, what else might their commitment cause them to add/alter/omit? What about things where the CT editor doesn't even leave a footnote such as Matt 6:13b and the doxology to the Lord's Prayer? How can a CT person ever teach or expound upon WLC 196?
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
Again, it's worth noting that some CT scholars reject it. Many accept it. The CT camp is really agreement on some broad principles of methodology, not agreement on all the details of the text.
[Moderation]
The original topic has been hashed over to exhaustion. New discussions and new topics deserve their own threads.
Closing this one.
The original topic has been hashed over to exhaustion. New discussions and new topics deserve their own threads.
Closing this one.
- Status
Similar threads
